Post #3124416
2026-03-20 00:07 UTC
@internic@mathstodon.xyz @davidsuculum@mathstodon.xyz
As a BTW, assigning anything like a probability to something that has an existing true or false answer, but that we merely do not know, has often been pointed out to be problematic in many ways.
The philosophy of probability is much more important to humble practitioners than many other kinds of philosophy.
Before even getting to things like Born.
Objective probability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequentist_probability
Probability assigned to belief: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credence_(statistics)
People often misapply credence to objective fact, and objective probability to mere beliefs, which has caused a great deal of historical confusion.
Replies (1)
-
@internic@mathstodon.xyz 2026-03-20 01:18
@dougmerritt@mathstodon.xyz But in a more skeptical view one might argue that we have direct, incontrovertible access to very little information about the world, only our perceptions. Even an object that you see in front of you can be subject to optical illusions, or you could be hallucinating, etc. In this framing, one can only mostly make statements of belief or credence about the world. My point being mostly that even trying to define the scope to which to apply the two different concepts of probability is pretty difficult. @davidsuculum@mathstodon.xyz